cybernationsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Mushroom Kingdom
technical defeat strategic victory in the ujw and nocb we just wanted to survive and inflict heavy damage upon our opponents, a goal we obviously succeeded in. thus we won a strategic victory. reverting it is pure vandalism and historical revisionism. sincerely, babyjesus Soviet Canuckistan (talk • ) 03:03, April 27, 2010 (UTC) :It's not vandalism to undo information that has just been recently changed without any serious reason given why; in fact, you are still the ones revising history. Now that you have given your reason, however, allow me to show you an acceptable way to insert what you have (see my edits). Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 1:65, Octidi, 8 Floréal CCXVIII :And while I'm at it, accusing a wiki administrator of vandalism probably isn't going to help this or any other case you choose to make in the future. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 2:05, Octidi, 8 Floréal CCXVIII this is an acceptable compromise michael but I do not take kindly to threats. please desist. threateningly yours, babyjesus Soviet Canuckistan (talk • ) 23:17, April 28, 2010 (UTC) :It's not a threat at all. I'm simply pointing out that that is a really illogical move to make. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 9:71, Nonidi, 9 Floréal CCXVIII A defeat is a defeat. 12:00, May 15, 2010 (UTC) :incorrect. we were victorious in our goals. stop vandalizing or I will have to summon michael von preußen. 03:30, May 17, 2010 (UTC) ::Look, I'm going to avoid getting involved in this unless it becomes a problem. I will, however, say this: both sides arguments' have a considerable amount of merit. While I respect the idea that MK achieved its goals in avoiding disbanding and inflicting damage on its opponents, I am very hesitant to say that this constitutes a strategic victory for the alliance. In most circumstances, a tactical loss and strategic victory, as MK is arguing the wars were, would indicate that, long-term, the damage done to the enemies, either as a direct impairment of their ability to wage war or in terms of other means, was greater than it was to the alliance in question. Now, the first part of that does not apply here, as MK's opponents did go on to wage wars effectively after both wars (though arguably more after UJW than WotC). The second part may apply, if one is to consider damage to those alliances' publicity, treaty webs, etc., that inevitably culminated in the Hegemony's defeat in the Karma War. However, if that is to be argued, the same case could be argued for almost every single war they fought, as I do not believe it is any sort of stretch to say that the vast majority of wars fought by 1V and Q contributed to their building a negative public image that culminated in their fighting in the Karma War. Given that it would be a huge stretch to claim that the opponents of those blocs in most of their wars achieved a strategic victory, saying it here quickly loses a lot of credibility. ::Aside from this, I'll be frank: when a wiki article has stated quite plainly "defeat" for several years, and apparently no one seemed to question it in that time, the ones coming along and changing it as has been done, when no new evidence or sources have been presented to back up their view, definitely look to me to be the ones participating in "historical revisionism", and not the ones they are accusing of doing so. Now, I'll disappear for another while while the inevitably bickering ensues. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation @ 1:56, Octidi, 28 Floréal CCXVIII That whole section needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. It reads like a propaganda piece that is spinning a defeat into a victory. It's funny that this oooollllld conversation still applies. I'm all for stating what the respective threads that ended the wars say. A la, "NPO, etc surrendered to MK" in the case of DH-NPO War and etc, that goes for both "wins" and "losses". If stuff is contested I'd say that still put a shorthand of what happened, again, a la "X surrendered Y" or "X was given white peace by Y" and put an asterisk beside the "result" and then put below more information, like "MK surrendered to X coalition but avoided forced disbandment by the coalition which was a goal of theirs" or whatever. Rogal talk 02:28,4/5/2013 (UTC) Strategic Victory Look, while MK "surrendered" (empty words on paper) it succeeded in its strategic goals of demolishing all of its opponents and securing a white peace for it and its allies. Hence strategic victory. MK has considered these wars victories for its entire existence. There are more than a few alliances who claim such victories in wars such as Karma and their pages go unchallenged. Stop vandalizing ours. Soviet Canuckistan (talk • ) 21:37, April 12, 2013 (UTC) :It's not vandalizing if people are making good-faith edits to try to improve the accuracy of the wiki. I personally think distinguishing strategic victory in a war table is stupid. That's not relevant at all to what the "paper" says. Claim all you want in prose, as long as it's done without bias. In summary tables, say what the "paper" says, because that's what is important at a glance. [[User:Bobogoobo| ]] 18:39, Friday, 12 April 2013 ( ) :If it's allowed for one alliance to put "strategic victory" instead of "defeat" or "surrender" then it would set a precedence in allowing everyone to follow suit which would be ridiculous. If there are other alliances doing the same, i.e. putting strategic victory etc for war outcomes, feel free to point them out. Rogal talk 00:01,4/13/2013 (UTC)